HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[sacountry]

@Ben Lamb ,do you think my plan to burn effigies on the front lawn of the Capitol would be interpreted as disrespectful and be counterproductive?

I am going to be so let down if you say yes.

 

[Schaaf]

Who is in charge of snacks bringing mozzarella sticks?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gerald, this isn't 1776, but I like your spirit.
Bacon pants acceptable. But, it will attract a lower class of carnivore than you're used too attracting. There hasn't been free lunch, so lobbyists & freshman legislators will hound you like a pack of Canadian super-woofs.

The bacon pants will be my gift to patrons of this bill. Please don’t tip them off to my secret agenda of me anticipating them being torn limb from limb by starving lobbyist savages.

 

[OntarioHunter]

As posted on the other thread about this:

I have it from a pretty good source that the new FWP director will be testifying in support of the bill. Going to need a huge campaign to stop this bill.

What? Hank didn't seem to me the kind to buy into this landowner aristocrat BS. That's too bad.

 

[Sytes]

As I read it section 2 of this bill allows the holder of a Class-A5 (resident OTC either-sex) or equivalent NR tag holder to indicate at the time of purchase he will use the tag on private land in an over objective to shoot a cow.
In return, he will can receive a total of 6 bonus points that can be used to apply for special permits in any district he chooses for following years.

Montana squares bonus points. If you have access to private land and exercise this option for five years you will have 900 chances to draw a permit of your choice. 5x6=30. 30x30=900

If you aren’t connected and have private access, in five years you will have 25 chances to draw a permit.

"As I read it section 2 of this bill..."
Is this an accurate read? It's a bit stunning to view #'s as presented.
900 over 5 years vs 25 over the same time frame?

 

[Gerald Martin]

"As I read it section 2 of this bill..."
Is this an accurate read? It's a bit stunning to view #'s as presented.
900 over 5 years vs 25 over the same time frame?

Feel free to check my math. I did six points per year for five years equals 30 base bonus points . Thirty squared is 900.
If you really want stunning, consider 3600 chances for someone who plays the game for ten years.

 

[Big Fin]

In my written testimony I focused on the privatization of wildlife on private ground, the wording that would allow those tags to be used unit wide and thereby increase pressure on public ground, and the creation of a second bonus point track that would effectively allow residents and wealthy non-residents to rapidly buy their way to the top of the point ladder without any real requirement to hunt or harvest a cow. It is not hard for me to see landowners or outfitters “selling” these sponsored tags to wealthy hunters who express an “intent” to hunt cows and then never even need to show up to collect their extra 5 bonus points. This would grossly disenfranchise the rest of the resident and non-resident hunting community.

On another note, is it fair to point out that the sponsor of this bill and his family may also be the greatest beneficiaries. Shouldn’t that be a major red flag to any other representative with a shred of integrity?

I think you are focusing on the proper points.

As for the last paragraph, of the sponsor being the greatest beneficiary, the current language says "at objective." The units where the sponsor's property is located are over objective, so the sponsor would not be able to use this bill as currently written. I bring this up to avoid people basing comments on such when the easy defense is that the sponsor would not benefit as written.

 

[Sytes]

Feel free to check my math. I did six points per year for five years equals 30 base bonus points . Thirty squared is 900.
If you really want stunning, consider 3600 chances for someone who plays the game for ten years.

This point alone should've been the lead title for editorials / featured opinion articles with Missoulian, Gazette, etc.

I'd find it hard for hunters to not question this bill. It hits right at the heart of most all hunters in MT and garner more opposition. Bit late for that though that simple stat is amazing!

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think you are focusing on the proper points.

As for the last paragraph, of the sponsor being the greatest beneficiary, the current language says "at objective." The units where the sponsor's property is located are over objective, so the sponsor would not be able to use this bill as currently written. I bring this up to avoid people basing comments on such when the easy defense is that the sponsor would not benefit as written.

As you accurately note, it’s an easy defense against the charge of immediate benefit to the sponsor.
It also doesn’t address the ease by which objectives can be changed if future tolerance is increased.

 

[sacountry]

So here's a thought @Gerald Martin and @Big Fin . The state constitution reads as follows:

​

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES​

Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES​

Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

It could very effectively be argued that HB505 is technically unconstitutional because it's going to result in selective harvesting of a natural resource that will diminish the genetics of our elk herd through the targeted harvesting of trophy elk on private land. Furthermore (if I'm reading HB505 correctly) it's specifically preventing citizens from Montana from benefiting by the issuance of these non-resident only tags.

Am I wrong?

 

[JEL]

GG is probably giving him his marching orders.

Yep. Also there have been several hearings so far this session where the vast majority of testimony was opposed but the majority passed it out of committee anyway. Wish I could be there but we are in the middle of calving.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I have a feeling some of the GOP bullies ramming thIs load of self-serving bullshit legislation through Helena are counting on sensible opposition not showing up to oppose it at hearings ... because sensible people don't want to spread COVID-19. I hope enough of you folks take the risk and show up anyway to prove them wrong. You have my support.

JEL, if I was closer I'd be there with my rubber boots and gloves on to relieve you. I've pulled a few but it's been thirty years. Don't imagine calving has changed that much. Glad to hear one rancher is on the public hunting side of the fence!

 

[BuzzH]

As I read it section 2 of this bill allows the holder of a Class-A5 (resident OTC either-sex) or equivalent NR tag holder to indicate at the time of purchase he will use the tag on private land in an over objective to shoot a cow.
In return, he will can receive a total of 6 bonus points that can be used to apply for special permits in any district he chooses for following years.

Montana squares bonus points. If you have access to private land and exercise this option for five years you will have 900 chances to draw a permit of your choice. 5x6=30. 30x30=900

If you aren’t connected and have private access, in five years you will have 25 chances to draw a permit.

...or you could forgo hunting a cow and assisting with the over objective elk, and still get your points.

Hmmmm if this passes I may have to re-evaluate my NR elk purchase. I mean for 5 years, $200 a year added to my Native Deer license...900 elk points points, probably draw another breaks tag.

 

[Gerald Martin]

...or you could forgo hunting a cow and assisting with the over objective elk, and still get your points.

Hmmmm if this passes I may have to re-evaluate my NR elk purchase. I mean for 5 years, $200 a year added to my Native Deer license...900 elk points points, probably draw another breaks tag.

By that time we will have eliminated elk in Breaks but it would be a nice piece of paper for artwork on the wall.

 

[BuzzH]

By that time we will have eliminated elk in Breaks but it would be a nice piece of paper for artwork on the wall.

Probably so...but just another example of how jacked up that legislation is.

 

[Gevock]

Montana Wildlife Federation

HB 505, sponsored by House Speaker Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, would change elk hunting in Montana as we know it. The bill would create landowner-sponsored elk licenses for nonresident hunters, write 6 months of cow elk hunting permanently into state law, and do nothing to address elk populations over the objective in certain hunting districts.

This bill is full of problems that encourage less access to elk during our five-week rifle season, creates incentives for people to game the system to draw limited elk permits for big bulls, and ultimately will do nothing to address burgeoning elk populations without added public access to help manage public elk.



HB 505 is heading to the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee next week and it will take a lot of hunters’ voices to kill this bad bill. Please contact the entire committee by clicking here, and tell them to vote NO on HB 505.



PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but hit these main talkers.

• Montana has incredibly liberal elk seasons with the ability to kill three elk per year. We don’t support landowner-sponsored licenses for elk that are rife for abuse and yet don’t address the real problem.
• HB 505 does nothing to ensure that more private lands are opened up to help kill more elk and push them back to public land during the general rifle season.
• Montana FWP spends $30 million per year on programs to benefit landowners as part of the partnership with hunters. .

Please go HERE and tell the House FWP committee members to vote NO on HB 505 to keep elk public and not create a system that will be abused in coming years.

• Fill out the form provided.
• Select Committees
• Select (H) Fish, Wildlife and Parks
• Select Bill Type (HB) and Bill Number HB 505
• Select Against
• Provide your message

You can also call the Capitol Switchboard at 444-4800 and leave a message for the entire House FWP committee.



The bill will be heard 3 p.m. Tuesday, March 9 in the House FWP committee. You must register by noon on Monday, March 8. To do that, go here and fill out the form for HB 505. For more information view HOW TO TESTIFY REMOTELY.



Thanks for your support of Montana’s wildlife, habitat and public access.



Nick Gevock



As always, our bill tracker is up on our homepage at the top under “Capitol Report 2021”. P.S. Encourage your friends and family to join our Legislative Action Team.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I see Wylie Galt, the bill's sponsor, owns a 640,000 acre ranch near White Sulphur Springs. Guess we can connect the dots on this one.

 

[mtmuley]

I see Wylie Galt, the bill's sponsor, owns a 640,000 acre ranch near White Sulphur Springs. Guess we can connect the dots on this one.

Yep. Were on a TV show and have a helicopter to help "round up" cattle. mtmuley

 

[sacountry]

I see Wylie Galt, the bill's sponsor, owns a 640,000 acre ranch near White Sulphur Springs. Guess we can connect the dots on this one.

His property wouldn't presently qualify because Sulphur is over the FWP target population for elk. Have to be at target population to qualify. This is where I really struggle. Large land owners in the Elkhorns could qualify and thus completely crush what's been decades of work producing trophy elk.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Here is a pretty comprehensive discussion about House Bill 505: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_a5cfb228-d27d-5118-b2b8-d60d09e4228b.html

This quote is rather revealing:

“It’s an incentive approach because a landowner can’t get the 10 tags until the herd is at objective,” Galt said. “That means two options: either hunt the herd until it’s at objective or landowners could get together and raise the objective.” (Bold emphasis added).